Category Archives: Patentability

In re: George Mizhen Wang

Docket No. 2017-1827 REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL June 20, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed as Mr. Wang’s claims “contain ‘additional features’ that embody an ‘inventive concept,’ so as to nevertheless make them patent-eligible” … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

PTO Memorandum “Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals”

PTO Memorandum regarding Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al. Update: In the previously summarized Vanda decision (April 2018; FC Docket Nos. 2016-2707, -2708), the FC panel found claims to “[a] method for treating a patient….comprising the … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

Steven E. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., FKA Hewlett-Packard Company

Docket No. 2017-1437 Order denying rehearing en banc May 31, 2018 Brief summary: HP’s petition for en banc rehearing of FC panel’s decision remanding the DC’s grant of SJ for § 101 ineligibility denied. Summary: Judges Moore, Dyk, O’Malley, Taranto … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC

Docket No. 2017-2081 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 15, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ to SAP finding the asserted claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “not a physical-realm improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas”). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2707, -2708 PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES April 13, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement of later-issued OB patent by amended ANDA, and that method of treatment claims are patentable under § 101 affirmed. Summary: WW appealed DC holding … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Patentability, Written description | Leave a comment

Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corporation, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2139 PROST, HUGHES, STOLL April 9, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC grant of Funai’s motion to dismiss suit against it after finding that Maxon’s patents “claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101” affirmed (the “claims merely … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2315, -2341 MOORE, BRYSON, HUGHES March 8, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of § 101 eligibility affirmed as “the inventor” here “transformed the process into an inventive application”; jury determinations of infringement and damages affirmed for the … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Lost Profits, Patentability, Royalties | Leave a comment